Do you think America is doomed, or that it hit a bump in it's progression as a nation? - General

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37396001]How are governments created then?[/QUOTE] They aren't all created in the same way. I guess you could take a look at the 18th century and how the US government was created as an example. But since Kakistocrat was talking about "original governments" I guess I'll try to stick with that..which I'll address later in this post. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37397328]Private courts are optional, so companies could simply ignored their decisions.[/quote] The court decision would be a contractual obligation. Committing fraud by reneging on a previous agreement to abide by the court's ruling would be considered an initiation of force, and the other person would be justified under NAP in reclaiming damages (with the help of their police agency, if need be). [quote]If the courts tried to force the decision on them, they would violate the non-aggression principle.[/quote] Under most circumstances (settling disputes in court), both parties would have already agreed to have the decision be contractually binding before the proceedings began. If someone refused to go to court to answer accusations against them, a default judgement could be rendered against them (which could be taken to an appeals court). [quote] And companies could force others to pay taxes, if they choose to violate the non-aggression principle.[/quote] No one would pay them. How are they possibly going to have the resources and level of control needed to enforce that like the way governments do? [quote]And what do you mean that's not how governments were created? Feudalism, one of the original forms of government, was where landlords used aggression on each other and on workers to gain control. With no government, private companies will create government.[/QUOTE] What about tribes/chiefdoms? Small hunter/gatherer societies? There were other forms of government that existed before the time of feudalism. Ancient Rome (monarchy, republic, and autocracy) and Greece (democracy) for example? And I would argue not so much that private companies [i]wouldn't[/i] create government, but that they [i]can't[/i] create government. They wouldn't be able to establish that sort of influence, they'd have no way to sustainably fund it either. Governments took centuries to get the power and influence that they did, and it's also a whole different animal from a private company, in every aspect.

[QUOTE=Noble;37397991]They aren't all created in the same way. I guess you could take a look at the 18th century and how the US government was created as an example. But since Kakistocrat was talking about "original governments" I guess I'll try to stick with that..which I'll address later in this post. The court decision would be a contractual obligation. Committing fraud by reneging on a previous agreement to abide by the court's ruling would be considered an initiation of force, and the other person would be justified under NAP in reclaiming damages (with the help of their police agency, if need be). Under most circumstances (settling disputes in court), both parties would have already agreed to have the decision be contractually binding before the proceedings began. If someone refused to go to court to answer accusations against them, a default judgement could be rendered against them (which could be taken to an appeals court). No one would pay them. How are they possibly going to have the resources and level of control needed to enforce that like the way governments do? What about tribes/chiefdoms? Small hunter/gatherer societies? There were other forms of government that existed before the time of feudalism. Ancient Rome (monarchy, republic, and autocracy) and Greece (democracy) for example? And I would argue not so much that private companies [i]wouldn't[/i] create government, but that they [i]can't[/i] create government. They wouldn't be able to establish that sort of influence, they'd have no way to sustainably fund it either. Governments took centuries to get the power and influence that they did, and it's also a whole different animal from a private company, in every aspect.[/QUOTE] what if the private company never signed a court agreement? the court would have no power over them. As long as the courts are private companies, they can be ignored. Why wouldn't companies be capable of forcing others to pay taxes? The Mafia is able to force people to buy "insurance". To enforce their tax code, all they would have to do is threaten violence against those that do not follow it. Now you are right, there are other forms of government than feudalism, but I am not arguing that all governments were once companies, but that companies can become governments. Since feudal lords are really just landlords (a business model) who force their tenants/workers to follow their orders, you can see how private companies can become governments. Governments are not that different than companies. The only difference is that governments don't follow the non-aggression principle.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37403182]Since feudal lords are really just landlords (a business model) who force their tenants/workers to follow their orders[/QUOTE] I wouldn't compare feudalism to free-enterprise. In free-enterprise, people are not forced to work, but would rather sell their labor resources to firms in order to be better off. The masses have control of society's labor resource, and thus have the ability to create change. (see apartheid) Maybe I missed the point. So you're saying the government is a bunch of pimps basically? Well alrighty then.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37405532]I wouldn't compare feudalism to free-enterprise. In free-enterprise, people are not forced to work, but would rather sell their labor resources to firms in order to be better off. The masses have control of society's labor resource, and thus have the ability to create change. (see apartheid) Maybe I missed the point. So you're saying the government is a bunch of pimps basically? Well alrighty then.[/QUOTE] what I'm saying is that without government, private companies could force people to work against their will.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37403182]what if the private company never signed a court agreement? the court would have no power over them. As long as the courts are private companies, they can be ignored. Why wouldn't companies be capable of forcing others to pay taxes? The Mafia is able to force people to buy "insurance". To enforce their tax code, all they would have to do is threaten violence against those that do not follow it.[/quote] They would help is establishing a valid contract between 2 parties. For example, two parties would go to court and agree to have the decision of the court be contractually binding. They could ignore the ruling and violate the contract afterwards, but this would be a form of fraud and is therefore an initiation of force. The other party would then be justified in responding with necessary force to reclaim their damages. If they never signed the agreement and decided to ignore the ruling, a default judgement would be entered against them. That company (who didn't show up) could then take it to an appeals court to attempt to prove that the contract is invalid. Companies couldn't force others to pay taxes, at least not at the level I'm talking about (enough to fund a government) because they couldn't possibly get the resources and influences to do it (and sustain it). I'm not arguing that humans are perfect and that violence and fraud on a low level (a group extorting someone, for example) would never exist either. Would these things happen? Sure, but they happen now too under the current system. I'm just arguing that these issues could be dealt with by voluntary means. [quote]Now you are right, there are other forms of government than feudalism, but I am not arguing that all governments were once companies, but that companies can become governments. Since feudal lords are really just landlords (a business model) who force their tenants/workers to follow their orders, you can see how private companies can become governments. Governments are not that different than companies. The only difference is that governments don't follow the non-aggression principle.[/QUOTE] A landlord is just a seller of a good/service (rent on his land). He has no ethical justification to violate your right to self-ownership by initiating force against you. A feudal lord would do this, but at that point in history, there wasn't really any understanding of capitalism or private property rights. In a system where these rights are understood and protected, through voluntary means, the landlord can't get away with this, and the tenant/worker/whoever will be able to pursue them for damages. Governments are (in my view, radically) different from companies in several ways, but here's a more brief way for me to put it: A government spends other people's money, so it has less incentive to spend it wisely. Whatever losses that might follow don't directly affect them, the losses are socialized. They will invest (again, with other people's money) in things that are politically popular, so that politicians can get re-elected, even if it is glaringly obvious that those investments are wasteful and inefficient, which of course something that no one would do if they were actually investing their own money. The private sector is working with their own money and putting their own well-being on the line. The pursuit of private gains and the fear of private losses drives them to want to produce better goods and services and cut waste, but this is not the case with government. Companies also have to beat the competition in order to succeed and sustain themselves, again, this does not apply to government.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37407927]what I'm saying is that without government, private companies could force people to work against their will.[/QUOTE] But companies are competitive in attracting talent. In free-enterprise nobody is forced to work against their will, however working will make you better off. With enough qualifications, people are usually highly selective of where they choose to work, with good reason. With qualifications, being selective can raise your salary 20k.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37410739]But companies are competitive in attracting talent. In free-enterprise nobody is forced to work against their will, however working will make you better off. With enough qualifications, people are usually highly selective of where they choose to work, with good reason. With qualifications, being selective can raise your salary 20k.[/QUOTE] Except in the modern world, such a situation would leave a massive group of people working for the lowest of wages because there is a constant surplus of labour. There would be no jobs beyond that of basic tasks because public schooling would not exist to educate people. In every single case in the past 2 centuries, laissez faire capitalism leads to widespread poverty and a tiny upper class. Competition doesn't improve their situation. There is a reason we abandoned laissez faire policies.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37414770]Except in the modern world, such a situation would leave a massive group of people working for the lowest of wages because there is a constant surplus of labour.[/quote] The great majority of people are always going to be working at the lowest of wages, that's true today and it would be true in any situation. In a free market though, their savings (i.e. wages in the bank) are more valuable. As prices on goods/services continue to fall as a result of competition, the [i]real[/i] value of their savings then increases because they can buy more things with that money than they used to. [quote]There would be no jobs beyond that of basic tasks because public schooling would not exist to educate people.[/quote] Private schooling would exist and prices would be able to fall as new competitors enter the market without the burden of regulatory costs. As an example, just think of the technology today, like the Internet, and how it could be used to bring down the cost of education in the future. I also don't see why there would be "no jobs" beyond basic tasks... or what "basic tasks" actually means or why it's bad. Factory workers? Well yeah, there's always going to be a need for those kinds of jobs. When machines take over those lines of work, there is going to be a new demand for labor to build and maintain the machines, and so on. The situation would be the same as it's always been, those workers who have the most valuable skills to an employer will get better jobs and earn the most wages. Those workers who perform exceptionally at their jobs will have opportunities to get raises, promotions, etc, just as has always been the case. [quote]In every single case in the past 2 centuries, laissez faire capitalism leads to widespread poverty and a tiny upper class. Competition doesn't improve their situation. There is a reason we abandoned laissez faire policies.[/QUOTE] There never was a historical example of true laissez-faire capitalism though, but the US government's policies were a lot closer to it in the past, and those policies helped allow the market to build the US into one of, if not the most, prosperous nations on the planet in a relatively short period of time. Abandoning those policies, and the prosperity that could have come from it was probably the biggest mistake they ever made.

[QUOTE=Noble;37410020]If they never signed the agreement and decided to ignore the ruling, a default judgement would be entered against them. That company (who didn't show up) could then take it to an appeals court to attempt to prove that the contract is invalid.[/QUOTE] if a company never signed an agreement, any judgement made against them would violate the non-aggression principle (they never agreed to listen to the court). So are you saying it's okay for courts (which in your system, are private companies) to violate the non-aggression principle? [QUOTE=Noble;37410020]Companies couldn't force others to pay taxes, at least not at the level I'm talking about (enough to fund a government) because they couldn't possibly get the resources and influences to do it (and sustain it). I'm not arguing that humans are perfect and that violence and fraud on a low level (a group extorting someone, for example) would never exist either. Would these things happen? Sure, but they happen now too under the current system. I'm just arguing that these issues could be dealt with by voluntary means.[/QUOTE] why couldn't companies get the resources to fund a government? many large corporations make more in a year than small countries. A corporation might not be able to run a country the size of America, but it could definitively run one the size of Latvia. [QUOTE=Noble;37410020]A landlord is just a seller of a good/service (rent on his land). He has no ethical justification to violate your right to self-ownership by initiating force against you. A feudal lord would do this, but at that point in history, there wasn't really any understanding of capitalism or private property rights. In a system where these rights are understood and protected, through voluntary means, the landlord can't get away with this, and the tenant/worker/whoever will be able to pursue them for damages.[/QUOTE] You're right, a landlord has no ethical justification to violate your rights, but if there is no government, there is no one to stop them from doing it! If your landlord had a small private army, would you tell him "no, I won't pay taxes"? Of course not. You would pay them, for fear of your life. The idea of protecting rights through voluntary means is ridiculous. If it truly is voluntary, it means the person violating your rights has to VOLUNTARILY stop violating them. Why would they do that, if violating your rights makes them a profit? [QUOTE=Noble;37410020]Governments are (in my view, radically) different from companies in several ways, but here's a more brief way for me to put it: A government spends other people's money, so it has less incentive to spend it wisely. Whatever losses that might follow don't directly affect them, the losses are socialized. They will invest (again, with other people's money) in things that are politically popular, so that politicians can get re-elected, even if it is glaringly obvious that those investments are wasteful and inefficient, which of course something that no one would do if they were actually investing their own money. The private sector is working with their own money and putting their own well-being on the line. The pursuit of private gains and the fear of private losses drives them to want to produce better goods and services and cut waste, but this is not the case with government. Companies also have to beat the competition in order to succeed and sustain themselves, again, this does not apply to government.[/QUOTE] Yes, governments and private companies are very different. But with no formal government, there is nothing to stop a private corporation from becoming a government. Your whole system relies on the naive assumption that companies won't violate your rights because it's "wrong". Newsflash, they don't care. If it makes them a profit, they'll do it. [editline]26th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Fenderson;37410739]But companies are competitive in attracting talent. In free-enterprise nobody is forced to work against their will, however working will make you better off. With enough qualifications, people are usually highly selective of where they choose to work, with good reason. With qualifications, being selective can raise your salary 20k.[/QUOTE] did you read my post? without government, there is nothing to stop you from FORCING people to work. Free enterprise only exists because we have laws. [editline]26th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37414770]Except in the modern world, such a situation would leave a massive group of people working for the lowest of wages because there is a constant surplus of labour. There would be no jobs beyond that of basic tasks because public schooling would not exist to educate people. In every single case in the past 2 centuries, laissez faire capitalism leads to widespread poverty and a tiny upper class. Competition doesn't improve their situation. There is a reason we abandoned laissez faire policies.[/QUOTE] this whole post is ridiculous. Why would free enterprise lead to a constant surplus of labor, or a massive group of people working on extremely low wages? your argument is based more on fear-mongering than reason.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37416558]this whole post is ridiculous. Why would free enterprise lead to a constant surplus of labor, or a massive group of people working on extremely low wages? your argument is based more on fear-mongering than reason.[/QUOTE] Because it already happened multiple times in the past.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37416774]Because it already happened multiple times in the past.[/QUOTE] sources please?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37416836]sources please?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Child_labour[/url]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37416954][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Child_labour[/url][/QUOTE] Developing countries have no regulation because that is the only way business will come to their country. They have child laborers, 20 hour work days, and no bathroom breaks because they like it that way. They would rather have bad working conditions because it is better than doing nothing and starving or trying to grow shitty yams that nobody wants to buy. Sweatshop working conditions are good for developing countries because as the country begins to develop, there will be firms for newer firms to compete with for talent. A country's economic growth has a direct correlation with their index of economic freedom, as long as trade barriers and government law against business remains low, a country will eventually be fully developed.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37416954][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Child_labour[/url][/QUOTE] Child labor is a bad thing, but it has nothing to do with our argument. The Industrial Revolution turned our economy from one that was mostly agrarian, to one that was highly specialized and industrialized. [QUOTE=Wikipedia]The Industrial Revolution marks a major turning point in history; almost every aspect of daily life was influenced in some way. Most notably, average income and population began to exhibit unprecedented sustained growth. In the two centuries following 1800, the world's average per capita income increased over tenfold, while the world's population increased over sixfold.[2] In the words of Nobel Prize winner Robert E. Lucas, Jr., "For the first time in history, the living standards of the masses of ordinary people have begun to undergo sustained growth ... Nothing remotely like this economic behavior has happened before".[3][/QUOTE] This directly contradicts your claim that laissez-faire capitalism would destroy all but the most basic jobs. In fact, it proves that competition is good for the economy. Maybe you should choose your sources more wisely?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37417210]Child labor is a bad thing, but it has nothing to do with our argument. The Industrial Revolution turned our economy from one that was mostly agrarian, to one that was highly specialized and industrialized. This directly contradicts your claim that laissez-faire capitalism would destroy all but the most basic jobs. In fact, it proves that competition is good for the economy. Maybe you should choose your sources more wisely?[/QUOTE] Laissez faire capitalism was not responsible for the improvement in living standards, the improvement only came about due to the rise of trade unions and other socialist movements, not due to competition.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37417306]Laissez faire capitalism was not responsible for the improvement in living standards, the improvement only came about due to the rise of trade unions and other socialist movements, not due to competition.[/QUOTE] really? you're saying that laissez-faire capitalism, the cause of Industrial Revolution, had nothing to do with the jobs created by the Industrial Revolution? Once again, I would like sources. [editline]26th August 2012[/editline] Also, I must point out that trade unions do not violate the idea of laissez-faire capitalism. Trade unions are effectively a form of business, except instead of selling goods they sell labor.

I just don't see how will they overcome this crysis [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Usa_national_debt_20_April_2012.JPG/800px-Usa_national_debt_20_April_2012.JPG[/img] Also, i was talking with economist friend who told me that US economy will fail once Arabs start to pull out their gold from US banks...his words, not mine

[QUOTE=Dummkopfs!;37417481]I just don't see how will they overcome this crysis [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Usa_national_debt_20_April_2012.JPG/800px-Usa_national_debt_20_April_2012.JPG[/img] Also, i was talking with economist friend who told me that US economy will fail once Arabs start to pull out their gold from US banks...his words, not mine[/QUOTE] as we have talked about before, debt really isn't that big a problem. And your economist friend is crazy.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37417500]as we have talked about before, debt really isn't that big a problem. And your economist friend is crazy.[/QUOTE] I don't know, I heard when debt reaches 90% of a country's GDP the result is 1% a year loss of GDP growth for paying back interest.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37417719]I don't know, I heard when debt reaches 90% of a country's GDP the result is 1% a year loss of GDP growth for paying back interest.[/QUOTE] yes, debt is bad, but is by no means dooming. It's something you pay off in the long run.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37417500]as we have talked about before, debt really isn't that big a problem. And your economist friend is crazy.[/QUOTE] Get me up to speed, what is real problem? I know my friend is crazy :v:

[QUOTE=Dummkopfs!;37417884]Get me up to speed, what is real problem? I know my friend is crazy :v:[/QUOTE] the recession! what I meant is that debt isn't as bad as people think. Lendors actually prefer if we take a long time to pay it back. The only really set back is that the interest is now 6% of our spending.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37417382]really? you're saying that laissez-faire capitalism, the cause of Industrial Revolution[/QUOTE] No it wasn't. An industrial revolution is perfectly capable with starting off in a country which does not have laissez faire policies. A lot of countries had their own industrial revolution using state capitalist or command economies. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37417382]Also, I must point out that trade unions do not violate the idea of laissez-faire capitalism. Trade unions are effectively a form of business, except instead of selling goods they sell labor.[/QUOTE] Yes they do. The trade unions used their collective bargaining power to push for government reforms that oversaw the implementation of regulations such as maximum working hours, minimum wages and safety conditions.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37418441]No it wasn't. An industrial revolution is perfectly capable with starting off in a country which does not have laissez faire policies. A lot of countries had their own industrial revolution using state capitalist or command economies. Yes they do. The trade unions used their collective bargaining power to push for government reforms that oversaw the implementation of regulations such as maximum working hours, minimum wages and safety conditions.[/QUOTE] if laissez-faire capitalism wasn't the cause of the Industrial Revolution, why were you using the Industrial Revolution as an example of laissez-faire capitalism? You're changing your story because the facts aren't matching up. Trade unions usually use their collective bargaining power to demand higher wages from employers, not the government. That's why they went on strikes. As long as trade unions only deal with employers (instead of government) it's still laissez-faire. [editline]26th August 2012[/editline] [URL="http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=UN_DEN"]http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=UN_DEN[/URL] only 11.3% of american workers are members of unions. So I think it's safe to say that unions are not required in order to preserve standards of living.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37418529]if laissez-faire capitalism wasn't the cause of the Industrial Revolution, why were you using the Industrial Revolution as an example of laissez-faire capitalism? You're changing your story because the facts aren't matching up.[/QUOTE] Laissez-faire capitalism arose during the industrial revolution. It did not create the industrial revolution. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37418529]Trade unions usually use their collective bargaining power to demand higher wages from employers, not the government. That's why they went on strikes. As long as trade unions only deal with employers (instead of government) it's still laissez-faire.[/QUOTE] Except they also used their power to lobby for new laws. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37418529]only 11.3% of american workers are members of unions. So I think it's safe to say that unions are not required in order to preserve standards of living.[/QUOTE] That's because the trade union movement in America has massively declined. In the past it was much more prominent.

[URL="http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm"]http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm[/URL] only 5.2% of Americans make minimum wage or below. From this statistic you can see that the overwhelming majority of American workers have their wages set solely by the forces of supply and demand, instead of government mandate. I would say the market has done a fairly good job of setting wages. [editline]26th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37418690]Laissez-faire capitalism arose during the industrial revolution. It did not create the industrial revolution. Except they also used their power to lobby for new laws. That's because the trade union movement in America has massively declined. In the past it was much more prominent.[/QUOTE] oh I see. Once the Industrial Revolution becomes a good thing, you want to claim that laissez-faire capitalism had nothing to do with it. While labor unions can lobby for new laws, the main thing they do is use collective bargaining to set wages. [QUOTE=Wikipedia]A trade union (British English), labour union (Canadian English) or labor union (American English) is an organization of workers who have banded together to achieve common goals such as protecting the integrity of its trade, achieving higher pay, increasing the number of employees an employer hires, and better working conditions. The trade union, through its leadership, bargains with the employer on behalf of union members (rank and file members) and negotiates labour contracts (collective bargaining) with employers. The most common purpose of these associations or unions is "maintaining or improving the conditions of their employment".[1] This may include the negotiation of wages, work rules, complaint procedures, rules governing hiring, firing and promotion of workers, benefits, workplace safety and policies. The agreements negotiated by the union leaders are binding on the rank and file members and the employer and in some cases on other non-member workers.[/QUOTE] see? no mention of government. And yes, the trade union movement has declined. You know why? because they aren't needed anymore. The market sets wages, and people like it.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37418717]oh I see. Once the Industrial Revolution becomes a good thing, you want to claim that laissez-faire capitalism had nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE] Stop twisting my words. I am telling you that the Industrial revolution and Laissez Faire capitalism arose around the same time. Laissez faire capitalism is NOT a prerequisite for industrialisation. While labor unions can lobby for new laws, the main thing they do is use collective bargaining to set wages. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37418717]see? no mention of government.[/QUOTE] Well how else did regulations on such and such come about? Socialism grew from the trade union movements. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37418717]And yes, the trade union movement has declined. You know why? because they aren't needed anymore. The market sets wages, and people like it.[/QUOTE] or maybe its due to this [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley_Act[/url]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37418912]Stop twisting my words. I am telling you that the Industrial revolution and Laissez Faire capitalism arose around the same time. Laissez faire capitalism is NOT a prerequisite for industrialisation. While labor unions can lobby for new laws, the main thing they do is use collective bargaining to set wages. Well how else did regulations on such and such come about? Socialism grew from the trade union movements. or maybe its due to this [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley_Act[/url][/QUOTE] I'm not twisting your words, I'm showing how you are contradicting yourself. Most regulations made affecting trade unions are made between the workers and the employers, NOT the government. Why would the Taft-Harley Act make the trade union movement decline? if trade unions were really needed, people would riot and force the Taft-Harley act to be overturned. Anyways, I have already shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans (94.8%) have wages that are set by the market, not by the government. Seeing as Americans are not living on "starvation wages" I think it is fair to say that the market does not set starvation wages, and instead pays workers fairly. Therefore, laissez-faire capitalism would not result in starvation wages, like you claim. QED.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37418320]the recession! what I meant is that debt isn't as bad as people think. Lendors actually prefer if we take a long time to pay it back. The only really set back is that the interest is now 6% of our spending.[/QUOTE] The debt is at historic levels. Congress shows no sign of coming to a good budget agreement. We worry about the debt only to have to the congress raise the debt ceiling every 6 months. Though the federal reserve is setting interest rates to zero, no progress seems to be being made and it seems like a vast array of economic factors could knock us down at this point. A second recession could occur as a result of the collapse of the EU and as the debt becomes greater and greater, buyers of US bonds could sell, raising the interest rate on the national debt. The fed's zero interest rate policy, which is pretty new, could spawn a massive amount of bad business investment that could drive us under. There is a huge amount of derivatives out there in the world today. The total value of all the world's derivatives is estimated to be between 600 trillion and 1.4 quadtrillion dollars, if people end up being unable to pay back these derivatives, shit-soup will ensue. Anything can drive us under.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37416558]if a company never signed an agreement, any judgement made against them would violate the non-aggression principle (they never agreed to listen to the court). So are you saying it's okay for courts (which in your system, are private companies) to violate the non-aggression principle?[/quote] It's only a violation if they're making false claims/accusations. The courts would just assist in demonstrating that there was a contract and that a prior violation of it had already taken place. [quote]why couldn't companies get the resources to fund a government? many large corporations make more in a year than small countries. A corporation might not be able to run a country the size of America, but it could definitively run one the size of Latvia.[/quote] They would have to have a method to collect taxes regularly to sustain it, which would be a violation of those people's rights. The idea that the people will sit there and take it, including all those who are armed, and PMCs and private police, is not plausible. It took centuries for governments to get that sort of influence needed to sustain themselves. [quote]You're right, a landlord has no ethical justification to violate your rights, but if there is no government, there is no one to stop them from doing it! If your landlord had a small private army, would you tell him "no, I won't pay taxes"? Of course not. You would pay them, for fear of your life.[/quote] Well sure there are others who can stop it. The government doesn't have to have a monopoly on protection services. The private sector is not incapable of providing these services to people. The example you give for the landlord extorting me to pay him taxes, it's no different than any other crime/initiation of force. Sure I would give my money to the person extorting me at that time I was threatened, and then I would simply claim for damages later. [quote]The idea of protecting rights through voluntary means is ridiculous. If it truly is voluntary, it means the person violating your rights has to VOLUNTARILY stop violating them. Why would they do that, if violating your rights makes them a profit?[/quote] I'm not sure that I'm following this. Violating rights may make them a profit in the short run, but it will not do so in the long run. If they develop a reputation as a company that harms their consumers, no one will want to take the risk of transacting with them, and they'll quickly go out of business. Not to mention the lawsuits, of course. [quote]Yes, governments and private companies are very different. But with no formal government, there is nothing to stop a private corporation from becoming a government. Your whole system relies on the naive assumption that companies won't violate your rights because it's "wrong". Newsflash, they don't care. If it makes them a profit, they'll do it.[/QUOTE] Nah I'm not saying that they won't violate your rights just because it's wrong. I'm simply stating that the initiation of force is wrong, and that the victim has an ethical justification to reclaim damages. I guess we're just going to have to disagree on there being nothing to stop a private company from becoming a government, I stand by the view that they simply can't get the influence and resources needed to do it and sustain it.